Berkeley And Jefferson Intelligencer

From the United States Gazette.

Extract of a letter from Washington dated, Monday Morning, Feb. 22.

The speech of Mr. Gardenier on the state of the union, delivered on Saturday, which will, I presume, be reported for your Gazette, ought to be read by every man, woman and child, in the United States. It is one of the most important speeches ever delivered in the house of representatives, because it relates to the most important of all subjects, and contains awful and solemn truths, in which every individual in the United States is deeply concerned—truths, which every one would not have the intrepidity to declare in the face of the nation. Let, then every man read this speech, read it and repeat it, till he can recite the whole, and till he perceives and realizes the truth and force of every sentence and every word. This speech in a short compass presents a picture of the administration, of congress and of the nation.

Monday Evening.

To-day Messrs Newton and G. W. Campbell replied to Mr. Gardenier's speech of Saturday, and attempted to vindicate the embargo. They, however, offered nothing new; but only repeated, in worse language, the arguments which have been long since urged in the National Intelligencer, and reprinted in all the papers of every party throughout the country. Those who have attentively read those pieces, will have no curiosity to read the same arguments again. If the farmer wants an argument on the subject of the embargo, let him look at his produce, let him look at the markets, let him reflect on the motives, which are offered to encourage him, the coming spring, in recommencing his agricultural labours. The merchant has not only heard, but he has felt arguments enough on this subject. The democratic leaders were yesterday (Sunday) busy in sounding the members of the house of representatives to know whether they could be brought to vote for the expulsion of a gentleman who had honestly delivered his sentiments on the proceedings of congress and the state of the country. They found to their surprise that a sufficient number could not be dragged into the measure. They of course were obliged, though very reluctantly, to relinquish their design. They would be very glad to get rid of a man whose logic they cannot answer, whose wit they dread, and whose eloquence astonishes their puny souls. But the truth is that a considerable number of the democratic members not only admire the genius and talents of Mr. Gardenier, but they were very highly delighted with his attack on the embargo and his correct portrait of the national councils.

Mr. GARDENIER's Speech on the bill "in addition to the act, entitled an act supplementary to the act entitled, an act for laying the Embargo, &c.&c.&c."

I SHALL vote in favor of the motion to commit; but not for precisely the same reasons, which have been urged; but, as I apprehend for reasons more powerful. It has struck me sir, that the more we legislate on this subject, the worse we legislate—the more we legislate, the more we legislate to the destruction of our country. Why we passed the embargo law itself, I have been always unable to tell. Why we have passed subsequent laws for the purpose of rendering the original evil more perfect and more universal, God only knows. It does appear to me sir, that we are led on, step by step, but by an unseen hand. We are urged forward by a sort of spell, to the ruin of our country. Under the name of an embargo we are in truth and in fact passing non-intercourse laws? Under the beguiling form of a bill, supplemental to the embargo law, a law which prohibited the departure of vessels from your ports and harbors, you are about to prohibit all intercourse by land with any of the circumjacent territories of foreign nations. Between the original measure and this, there is no connexion: the principle of the one is totally different from the other. Nay sir, this bill is totally at variance with the president's embargo message.—

(Mr. Gardenier here read the following extract from the president's message of Dec. 21, 1807.)

"The communications now made, showing the great and increasing dangers with which our vessels, our seamen and merchandize are threatened on the high seas, and elsewhere, from the belligerent powers of Europe, and it being of the greatest importance to keep in safety these essential resources, I deem it my duty to recommend the subject to the consideration of congress, who will doubtless perceive all the advantages which may be expected from an inhibition of the departure of our vessels from the ports of the United States."

To prevent our ships and vessels from leaving their ports, for the purpose of preserving them, as resources to meet a state of war, if that should ultimately come, was all the president professed to have in view, all that he wished to do, at least at that time. I state it to the everlasting honour of the minority on that occasion and as long as I live I shall be proud of the share I had in that honour, that to resist even that law, we sat day after day and night after night. I cannot, therefore, possessing now the same opinion which governed me then, opposed as I still am to the existence of the embargo act, I cannot consent to go on, for the purpose of extending the operation of the evil more widely—for the purpose of making that worse which is already too bad. But this is different from our embargo law: It is a non-intercourse bill. The more the original measure develops itself, the more I am satisfied that my first view of it was correct; that it was a sly, cunning measure. That its real object was not merely to prevent our vessels from going out, but to effect a non-intercourse. Are the nation prepared for this? If you wish to try whether they are, tell them at once what is your object—tell them what you mean—tell them you mean to take part with the grand pacificator, or else stop your present course. Do not go on forging chains to fasten us to the car of the Imperial Conqueror.—[Here Mr. Smilie, Mr. G. W. Campbell, Mr. Montgomery, and several others rose together, some calling to order, and others very spitefully hoping the gentleman might proceed.]

The Speaker hoped the gentleman would keep within the rules of propriety.

Mr. Gardenier hoped the Speaker would keep order in the house [three gentlemen were still standing] for (said Mr. G.) it is impossible for me, sir, to speak and keep order in the house at the same time. [The confusion having ceased, Mr. Gardenier proceeded.] If the gentlemen have composed themselves—and are in a condition to hear, I will proceed. I wish first, however, to put them at ease on one point. They are not of sufficient importance to have been the objects at whom I would level any thing. I assure the gentlemen I did not mean them.

This sir, whatever name or complexion it may bear is in fact, a non-intercourse bill. The measure it proposes can be of no possible benefit to us—It has nothing in it to render palatable the distress it must bring on a very considerable portion of our citizens. I object particularly against the fourth section. It forbids the exportation of our produce by land; in which mode there is no danger of capture. When we passed the embargo act, it was not done with a view to stop trade, but was professed to be done with a view to keep safe our resources. The stopping of trade by water was not the object, however it may have been the inevitable consequence of the embargo. It was an evil necessarily resulting from it. The majority were willing to endure this evil in consideration of the eventual good which would result from keeping (as the President expresses it) in safety our essential resources. But as one mad measure usually begets more, so, in the present instance, it has happened. that the original object of the embargo, ruinous as it was, is abandoned, and gentlemen seemed to vie with each other in their endeavours to render our situation in every respect intolerable. I ask
The intelligent and candid men of this house, whether to prevent the farmers of Vermont from selling their pigs in Canada is calculated to increase or diminish their essential resources? Whether the object which the president professed to have in view is counteracted by a traffic of this kind? No sir. It is not only in direct hostility to the interests of the country, but what some gentlemen will probably regard quite as much, to the wishes of the president. I repeat it; the objects of the bill, particularly of the fourth section, and of the embargo are totally distinct.

Instead of measures of this description: instead of fettering commerce; instead of putting their ingenuity to the rack, in devising means to paralyze completely all the commercial activity of the country, I should have been happy to have perceived in the gentlemen who manage matters in this house; I should have been glad to have perceived, in the administration, a disposition to encourage as much commercial activity as could be possibly consistent with the professed object of the president: the safe keeping of our resources. I should have been happy to have found them content with the ruin and distress their darling project had already produced, without aiming at the utter, the total stagnation of all the commercial powers of the political body. But unhappily, instead of ameliorating, we go on to make worse and worse the condition of our devoted country. Suppose Vermont should send some of her produce to Canada: or Georgia to the Floridas: in what are the interests of the rest of the union to suffer by it? Or are we to go on passing these laws, zealous in our exertions to make bad worse, upon the principle, which same gentlemen in this house have very gravely advanced, that we ought to make the public suffering as equal (in other words) as universal as possible—to extend it to every nook and corner of the union; that no portion, no section however remote, however secluded, should escape from taking its due proportion of the bitter draught; none, which the fatal gangrene should not reach? If we are running mad, sir. we have at least this consolation: we have "method in our madness."

It is strange, it astonishes me, that by an embargo, we should be led to the measures contemplated in this bill. Because you wish to preserve your vessels and seamen, those essential resources in your seaports, you are therefore to prohibit all trafficking across your territorial lines, though it is evident that by permitting it, your citizens, of course your country, will be benefited. Sir, I cannot express my amazement at the dreadful infatuation which pervades the public councils. I conjure the members of this assembly to cease for a moment their exertions—I conjure them to sheathe the destroying sword; in the name of our suffering country I entreat them to save it from these new and accumulating evils. The great object of your president is secured.—Leave a little to your distressed people. Do not, I implore you, permit yourselves to be persuaded, that the public interest cannot be subserved, unless every body is destroyed.

I doubt whether experience has proved that the original law was for the public interest. Hitherto our ships might have navigated the ocean in safety. But at any rate is it wise to hazard every thing upon the experiment? for at best it is but an experiment. If it shall be proved ultimately to have been a good measure, it will also prove to have been strong enough to produce good enough to satisfy every rational theorist. If a bad one, it will have produced calamity enough, full as much as our country can stagger under.

I have in view no object but my country's good—and when I see it threatened on every side, it is my duty to speak out boldly and earnestly to this house and to this nation. And I will again entreat gentlemen to reflect whether the continual extension of the non-intercourse system, is calculated to make us better prepared to engage in a war either with France or G. Britain? For upon that ground was the original measure of the embargo demanded by the president; upon that ground only could it be even plausibly defended. Sir, it is high time to stop. We have done enough.

If it is wise to contrive that every part of the country should suffer; if this strange notion be indeed good policy, I could wish gentlemen would, instead of bolting at me in the fulness of their rage, endeavour to satisfy my poor understanding by cool reasoning that they are right. That they would show me how this measure will prepare us for war—how the weakening by distressing every part of the country, is to increase its strength and its vigour. No. I cannot be deceived in the view I have taken of this measure—and I will not cease to protest against it with all the energies with which I am possessed.

I am grieved to see that we are perpetually engaged in making additions and supplements to the embargo law. Wherever we can spy a hole, if it be no bigger than a wheat straw, at which the industry and enterprise of our country can find vent, all our powers are called into requisition to stop it up. The people of this country shall sell nothing but what they sell to each other. All our surplus produce shall rot on our hands. God knows what all this means! I sir. cannot understand it, I am astonished—indeed I am astonished and dismayed. I see effects; but I can trace them to no cause. Yes sir, I do fear that there is an unseen hand, which is guiding us to the most dreadful destinies—Unseen because it cannot endure the light. Darkness and mystery overshadow this house and this whole nation. We know nothing—we are permitted to know nothing. We sit here as mere automata; we legislate without knowing, nay, sir, without wishing to know, why or wherefore. We are told what we are to do and the Council of Five Hundred do it. We move, but why or wherefore, no man knows; we are put in motion, but how, I for one cannot tell.

Sir: the gentlemen of this house with whom I have the honour to act, and a distinguished honour I consider it, are disposed to do all that men can do for their country. But we wish to know what we are doing—the tendency of the measures we are called upon to adopt. If the motives and the principles of the administration are honest and patriotic, we would support them with a fervour which none could surpass. But sir, we are kept in total darkness. We are treated as the enemies of our country. We are permitted to know nothing, and execrated because we do not approve of measures, the origin and tendency of which are carefully concealed from us! We are denounced because we have no confidence in the executive, at the moment the executive refuses to discover to us—even this house—nay sir: this nation, its actual condition. Like the Israelites in Egypt, we are to make brick and find our own straw. We are to have faith and find out our own reasons for it. This course will do in this country no longer. (The speaker called Mr. G. to order. W. Alston wished the gentleman might be permitted to proceed)—Mr. Gardenier. I do not desire permission of that gentleman. I shall permit myself to proceed. I have wandered, sir; through a wide field, I confess. I return to this bill. I wish to soften its asperities—to make its operation more mild. Particularly to have the fourth section expunged. I will, therefore, vote for its commitment.

February 22.

The house then proceeded to consider the motion made on Saturday by Mr. D. R. Williams, to re-commit the bill in addition to the act supplementary to the act laying an embargo.

(FOREIGN INFLUENCE)

Mr. Johnson rose to reply to the observations of Mr. Gardenier on Saturday, respecting the embargo. He declared himself a friend to freedom of debate, but said that, the charges made against the house ought not to be excused. It had been said (he observed) that this house was guided by an invisible hand: that like the council of five hundred, they waited for the word of command and obeyed it; that they were under foreign influence; that they were riveting the chains which were to bind us under the dominion of the French Emperor; and that they were automata. Mr. J. considered such assertion as a base slander. He said this upon the most mature consideration, and should not retract it; and if the feelings of any gentleman were wounded by this declaration, he should not consider himself guarded by his privileges or by the canopy which covered him.

Mr. Rhea spoke also at length in reply to Mr. Gardenier: but his observations could not be distinctly heard.

Mr. Newton spoke in justification of the embargo measure, declaring it the wisest measure which could have been adopted.

The speaker observed, that the subject before the house was a motion to re-commit the bill.

Mr. G. W. Campbell said that if the charge made against the government, of being under foreign influence, was true, it ought to be proved and made public.